Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biofuels Make Greenhouse Gases Worse

Posted by kdawson on from the no-free-lunch dept.

vortex2.71 sends us to the Seattle Times for an account of two studies published in the prestigious journal Science pointing to the conclusion that almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account. "The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example. These studies... for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development."

6 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Hm... by kmac06 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So an effort to fix global warming made things worse? How surprising.

    1. Re:Hm... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you are assuming that the countries which own oil fields are filled with idiots that when left to their own devices would simply raise prices until no one would buy it from them, ruining themselves in the process. Great basis for any argument!

    2. Re:Hm... by grahamd0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      your statement is flawed, otherwise i'd reply to it Clearly, you're a powerful orator, skilled in the subtleties of debate. Have you considered running for public office?
    3. Re:Hm... by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Funny
      Bah! you need to kick it up a notch with this and this

      Now I am prepared for any eventuality.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  2. Re:Not hard to believe by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

    Me too, but so far I've only had success getting the system to work on downhill journeys. Uphill journeys are still unsolved. I've heard other people have had success using flywheels to capture the energy from braking, but the only solution seems to be to make the hills higher on one side than the other.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  3. Re:Not really. by dubl-u · · Score: 2, Funny

    So if you were to eat only meat, you would not avoid the need to grow vegetables. In fact, to grow a pound of beef in north america, it takes at least 2.6 pounds of grain.

    Not so fast, Mr. Smarty Pants. You've left out a crucial factor in your calculations.

    A person consuming mainly factory-farmed beef, thanks to the massive cholesterol, hormone, and antibiotic intake, will die years, maybe decades earlier than the vegetarian. As their arteries clog up, they'll become sedentary, further reducing their energy consumption. Plus, once everybody gets fatter and wheezier, birth rates will go way down.

    So we can conclude that super-beefy diets are better for the planet. Even better, if we listen to people like the 'tard who proposed it, I'm pretty sure humanity will die out in short order, allowing the planet to recover nicely